Republic of the Philippines

National Capital Judicial Region

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
Branch 28, Manila

IYAK TALO,
Plaintiff,

-versus- M-MNLA-15-29815-CV
FOR: Damages

TUNAY N. NAGTAGUMPAY
Defendant.
x--------------------------------------------------x

ANSWER OF TUNAY N. NAGTAGUMPAY

DEFENDANT TUNAY N. NAGTAGUMPAY, (hereinafter referred to as

“Defendant NAGTAGUMPAY”), Filipino, of legal age, married, and with postal and
residential address at 1469 A-Alvarado Ext. Tondo, Manila, thru the undersigned
counsel, after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, hereby depose and state
that:

1. Defendant NAGTAGUMPAY admits paragraph 2 insofar as it states his rights over

subject house/property but he specifically denies the allegation in paragraph 2 which
states that the construction of the house was the cause of the “damage” allegedly
suffered by the plaintiff.

2. Defendant NAGTAGUMPAY likewise specifically denies the allegation of plaintiff

that the internet wires and other cable wires were tied altogether by to accommodate
the construction of his house. The photo attached by plaintiff clearly shows a standard
arrangement of electrical wirings. Defendant did not remove nor re-arranged any
cable wires in the area as he is aware of the danger in intrusion of any electrical
wirings in the area. Noteworthy that, assuming the allegations were true, it would
only result to disruption of electricity and other services of defendant’s neighbors
which were allegedly “tied” by defendant. These matters will be further discussed in
the affirmative and special defenses.

3. Defendant NAGTAGUMPAY likewise specifically denies the allegations in

paragraph 10 for having no personal knowledge to form a belief as to the truth,
veracity or falsity thereof as he did not personally witness the same.
4. As regards paragraphs 14 to 16, Defendant NAGTAGUMPAY partially admits that
there was a meeting conducted sometime in October 2019 (copies of the Barangay
Mediation are attached as Annexes “1”, and “2”). Defendant wrote a letter to Hon.
Carlos Chua for the photocopy of the minutes of the said mediation dates (copy of the
letter is attached as Annex “3”). Defendant NAGTAGUMPAY, insisted that he is
willing to settle with the Plaintiff as long as she would provide any proof or

1
 certification which would show that the “damage” she “sustained” was due to the
construction of defendant’s house. During the Barangay Conciliation, Plaintiff
presented a “Certification” allegedly from PLDT stating that defendant’s construction
of a house was the reason of the slow internet connection. Copy of the “Certification”
from PLDT is attached as Annex “4”.

5. The day after the initial barangay mediation, around 7 o’clock in the morning,
Plaintiff’s son, Mariel S. IYAK TALO, went to the house of Defendant and shouted
therein, and punched the latter’s door several times. Mariel S. IYAK TALO further
exclaimed that he would continuously cause trouble if the defendant will not pay his
mother’s claim. Such violent and barbaric action of the Plaintiff’s son caused anxiety
and severe distress to the defendant as Mariel Sibal is a well-known troublemaker in
the barangay, added to the anxiety cause by the plaintiff’s baseless claim.

6. Defendant NAGTAGUMPAY also specifically denies the allegations in paragraphs

24 to 26 for being self-serving. Plaintiff’s allegations were nothing but baseless
claims, and to prove that it was Plaintiff and her son who taunted defendant.

SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

7. Defendant NAGTAGUMPAY strongly belies the rest of the malicious, false, and
unjust allegations of the plaintiff against him. First, defendant peacefully tried to
settle with Plaintiff, if the latter will show proof that it was defendant’s construction
of their house which caused the slow internet connection. To reflect the existing
reality, slow internet connection has been a problem within the area of the plaintiff.
Plaintiff presented an alleged “Certification” from PLDT before the Barangay. The
said certification, on its face, is not a legitimate PLDT certification as it does not bear
the PLDT official letterhead. Copy the said Certification is attached as Annex “5”.

8. The Certification dated November 14, 2014 attached by Plaintiff would show that
slow internet connection and/or absence of dial tone of the telephone was due to
DEFECTIVE/ WRONG SETTING. More importantly, the same Certification noted
that the said problems were already RESOLVED on October 13, 16, 20. 24. and 30
of 2019, the same was in fact confirmed by Plaintiff. It is likewise noteworthy that in
the same document, PLDT indicated that the “Incident Report” is not valid for
litigation purposes.

9. For the record, the Plaintiff’s allegation against Defendant NAGTAGUMPAY

regarding the slow internet connection which allegedly cause losses to their internet
business is false, delusional, and untenable. It is not true that defendant ‘s
construction of his house and the alleged “entanglement” of cable wires of
defendant’s, including to that of Plaintiff, resulted to the loss of the latter’s internet
connection. Plaintiff’s computation of her alleged losses is nothing but self-serving
and merely provided a rough estimate of her usual expenses in her shop and
household. It is noteworthy that Plaintiff alleged her usual and ordinary expenses
without proof of billing from these providers.

10. According to plaintiff, defendant allegedly “tied” cable wires surrounding the house
constructed, as such it resulted to the slow internet connection, if the same were true,
would it be consequential that not only plaintiff but everyone whose wires were
“tied” in the neighborhood would be affected and experience the same disruption to
their electric and internet services.

11. It must also be noted that Plaintiff secure the legal services of the Public Attorney’s
Office (PAO) and claimed that she is an indigent party. The Rules of Court provides
who is considered indigent litigant, to wit:

2
 “SECTION 21. Indigent party. — A party may be authorized to litigate his
action, claim or defense as an indigent if the court, upon an ex parte
application and hearing, is satisfied that the party is one who has no money or
property sufficient and available for food, shelter and basic necessities for
himself and his family.

Such authority shall include an exemption from payment of docket and other
lawful fees, and of transcripts of stenographic notes which the court may order
to be furnished him. The amount of the docket and other lawful fees which the
indigent was exempted from paying shall be a lien on any judgment rendered
in the case favorable to the indigent, unless the court otherwise provides.”
(emphasis supplied)

12. In connection with this, the Court likewise provides the following documentary
requirements in order to declare a party an Indigent Litigant and subsequent
exemption from payment of legal fees, to wit:

SECTION 18. Pauper-litigants exempt from payment

of legal fees. — Pauper-litigants (a) whose gross
income and that of their immediate family do not
exceed four thousand (P4,000.00) pesos a month if
residing in Metro Manila, and three thousand
(P3,000.00) pesos a month if residing outside Metro
Manila, and (b) who do not own real property with an
assessed value of more than fifty thousand
(P50,000.00) pesos shall be exempt from the payment
of legal fees. (emphasis supplied)

13. Plaintiff is not an indigent party as evidenced her own admission (Tala, gugulin at
Kita Certification attached as Annex (“6”) that she is receiving an average monthly
income of PHP10,000.00. Clearly, Plaintiff shall not be exempt from paying legal
fees as she is not an indigent litigant. The legal fees shall be a lien on any judgment
rendered in the case favorably to the pauper-litigant unless the court otherwise
provides. In the case of Teofilo Martinez vs. People of the Philippines 1

“To be entitled to the exemption herein provided, the litigant

shall execute an affidavit that he and his immediate family do
not earn the gross income abovementioned, nor do they own any
real property with the assessed value aforementioned, supported
by an affidavit of a disinterested person attesting to the truth of
the litigant’s affidavit.
Any falsity in the affidavit of a litigant or disinterested person
shall be sufficient cause to strike out the pleading of that party,
without prejudice to whatever criminal liability may have been
incurred.” (emphasis supplied)

14. Plaintiff has a computer shop business as evidenced by a Barangay Certification

attached in her complaint. This further belies her claim that she is an indigent litigant.
Noteworthy, that Plaintiff’s internet/ computer business does not have an appropriate
business permit from the City of Manila. Plaintiff merely stated that it is known in
their barangay that she owns an Internet/ Computer shop.

15. Plaintiff’s untruthful claims as an indigent litigant when in truth and in fact she is not,
should not be considered as an indigent litigant, hence she should not be qualified to
obtain the services of the honorable public attorney. Plaintiff’s deceitful
1
G.R. No. 132852. May 31, 2000

3
 representation just to obtain the services of the honorable public attorney should have
been rendered to parties who are more deserving and those who are in need of
counsel but does not have the capacity to secure the services of a private counsel.

16. Not only did plaintiff lied to her qualifications as an indigent litigant, but likewise she
is operating an internet/ computer shop without proper business permit since 2012.
Plaintiff merely attached a Barangay, and not appropriate business permits.
Moreover, plaintiff’s complaint of attributing a typical scenario of slow internet
connection to the construction of a small house of defendant is nothing but a money-
making scheme.

17. Defendant has been living in the said barangay for the past sixteen (16) years and has
been known as a man of good refute. He was never involved in any bickering or
trouble in the barangay and in fact, known for being kind and helpful to neighbors.

18. That is why Defendant NAGTAGUMPAY was so disheartened, shocked, and

disappointed to know that the plaintiff filed this unmeritorious, unfounded, and bogus
complaint against her which deserves outright dismissal by this Honorable Court.

19. Undoubtedly, the instant complaint for damages prosecution is baseless, untenable,
and unmeritorious. This Complaint was clearly motivated by ill will and bad faith;

20. In fact, it is defendant NAGTAGUMPAY who experienced harassment, severe

embarrassment, and abuses, and unfair treatment in the filing of this complaint
against him;

21. All in all, the damages being asked by the plaintiff are not just exorbitant and
whimsical but more so, they are illegal and unjustified because they are based on
unmeritorious grounds, fabricated stories, and outright lies.

22. Complainant is not entitled to damages under Articles 19, 20 and 21, and Article 2217
and 2219(8) of the New Civil Code. Complainant’s alleged that her cause of action is
based on the Civil Code’s provision on abuse of right.

23. To reiterate, elements of abuse of rights are the following:

a. the existence of a legal right or duty.

b. which is exercise in bad faith; and
c. for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another.2

Thus, malice or bad faith is at the core of the above provisions. Good faith refers
to the state of the mind which is manifested by the acts of the individual concerned. In
consists of the intention to abstain from taking an unconscionable and unscrupulous
advantage of another. Good faith is presumed and he who alleges bad faith has the duty
to prove the same. Bad faith, on the other hand, does not simply connote bad judgment to
simple negligence, dishonest purpose or some moral obloquy and conscious doing of a
wrong, a breach of known duty due to some motives or interest or ill-will that partakes of
the nature of fraud. Malice connotes ill-will or spite and speaks not in response to duty. It
implies an intention to do ulterior and unjustifiable harm. Malice is bad faith or bad
motive.

24. Defendant did not abuse any right when he allowed the construction of his small
house. Furthermore, defendant did not have any intention or ill-that will result to any
interruption or damage to anyone in the neighborhood.

2
Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corp., Limited v. Catalan, G.R. No. 159591, October 18, 2004

4
 COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIMS

25. Because of this unfounded Complaint, Defendant NAGTAGUMPAY whose been

suffering from heart enlargement, suffered anxiety, mental anguish, sleepless nights,
and which caused several days of extensive medication which must be compensated
by way of Moral Damages in the amount of Php 20,000.00.

26. Plaintiff hastily filed this malicious Complaint without basis and merit. This must not
be emulated. To deter the public from similar act, Exemplary damages is prayed to be
awarded in the amount of Php30,000.00.

PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is most respectfully prayed of the Honorable

Court that the instant COMPLAINT be DISMISSED and that:

a. Plaintiff be ordered to pay the Defendant Php 20,000.00 by way of Moral

Damages;
b. Plaintiff be ordered to pay the Defendant Php 30,000.00 by way of Exemplary
Damages;
c. Plaintiff be ordered to pay Defendant Costs of Suit;

Such other relief just and equitable under the premises be likewise granted.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

15 June 2020. City of Manila.

ARCHER GISELA MARTIN

Counsel for Defendant
Roll of Attorneys No. 108888
IBP No. 14879; Manila I; 01-28-2020
PTR No. 365897; Manila; 01-07-2020
MCLE Exempt (Admitted to the Bar on June 20, 2019)
Tondo, Manila
+63906369548

5
Republic of the Philippines }
City of Manila } S.S.

VERIFICATION

I, TUNAY N. NAGTAGUMPAY of legal age, Filipino, married, with postal and

office address at 1469, Manila, hereby declare that:

1. I am the Defendant in this case. As such, I caused the preparation of the foregoing
Answer, annexes, and any other pleading or amendment thereof, in connection therewith
by our lawyer and eventual filing in Court;

2. I certify that all the facts, allegations, and documents therein contained have been
read and understood by me and the same are true and correct of my own knowledge and
belief, and/or based on authentic records;

Further affiant sayeth not.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto affix my signature this

___________________in the City of Manila.

TUNAY N. NAGTAGUMPAY
Defendant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this _______ at the City of Manila,

affiant exhibiting to me her identification GOV’T ISSUED ID cards.

Notary Public
Doc. No. _____;
Page No. _____;
Book No. _____;
Series of 2020.

6
Copy Furnished Personal Service:

ATTY. ABCD EFG

Counsel for the Plaintiff
4th Floor, Cebu City Hall,

EXPLANATION
Copy of this ANSWER was furnished the other party by PERSONAL SERVICE.

ATTY. ARCHER GISELA MARTIN